The Social Network & Community JUST for Firefighters
Tennessee Firefighters Let Home Burn Over Subscription Issue
JASON HIBBS
WPSD
Reprinted with Permission
OBION COUNTY, Tenn. - Imagine your home catches fire but the local fire department won't respond, then watches it burn. That's exactly what happened to a local family tonight.
Related
- WPSD: Firefighters Watch as Home Burns to the Ground
- WPSD: More Fallout Following House Fire
- USAToday: Firefighters watch house burn because owner hadn't paid $...
- MSNBC: No pay, no spray: Firefighters let home burn
FireEMSBlogs.com Updates
A local neighborhood is furious after firefighters watched as an Obion County, Tennessee, home burned to the ground.
The homeowner, Gene Cranick, said he offered to pay whatever it would take for firefighters to put out the flames, but was told it was too late. They wouldn't do anything to stop his house from burning.
Each year, Obion County residents must pay $75 if they want fire protection from the city of South Fulton. But the Cranicks did not pay.
The mayor said if homeowners don't pay, they're out of luck.
This fire went on for hours because garden hoses just wouldn't put it out. It wasn't until that fire spread to a neighbor's property, that anyone would respond.
Turns out, the neighbor had paid the fee.
"I thought they'd come out and put it out, even if you hadn't paid your $75, but I was wrong," said Gene Cranick.
Because of that, not much is left of Cranick's house.
They called 911 several times, and initially the South Fulton Fire Department would not come.
The Cranicks told 9-1-1 they would pay firefighters, whatever the cost, to stop the fire before it spread to their house.
"When I called I told them that. My grandson had already called there and he thought that when I got here I could get something done, I couldn't," Paulette Cranick.
It was only when a neighbor's field caught fire, a neighbor who had paid the county fire service fee, that the department responded. Gene Cranick asked the fire chief to make an exception and save his home, the chief wouldn't.
We asked him why.
He wouldn't talk to us and called police to have us escorted off the property. Police never came but firefighters quickly left the scene. Meanwhile, the Cranick home continued to burn.
We asked the mayor of South Fulton if the chief could have made an exception.
"Anybody that's not in the city of South Fulton, it's a service we offer, either they accept it or they don't," Mayor David Crocker said.
Friends and neighbors said it's a cruel and dangerous city policy but the Cranicks don't blame the firefighters themselves. They blame the people in charge.
"They're doing their job," Paulette Cranick said of the firefighters. "They're doing what they are told to do. It's not their fault."
To give you an idea of just how intense the feelings got in this situation, soon after the fire department returned to the station, the Obion County Sheriff's Department said someone went there and assaulted one of the firefighters.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by M.J. 6821 on
-
I agree with everything you said. I have to ask as well does the neighbors $75 cover the cost of the trucks idling and the man hours used while they sat and watched the house burn?
-
Permalink Reply by John Crabbe on
-
Are you seriously asking someone to comment on someone else's feelings?
It is one thing to have empathy for someone who lost what they had, but it doesn't mean the FF's were in the wrong for following orders. Apologizing doesn't admit to guilt, just an expression of empathy because of the limitations placed on them.
Really, if you want to take that route, apologizing to a family because their loved one is dead and you can't do anything, isn't admitting guilt or that you were in the wrong, it is showing empathy.
-
Permalink Reply by Herb Genelly III on
-
No dude...my issue has been the Moral view of this disaster. The FF's apologized for not doing the job they wanted. Would you apologize to a loved one by saying...sorry....I didn't do anything to say them?
-
-
I can agree with point 1...the dispatching can come into question and the decision of sending resources. This would be something that may need sorting out.
Fire Scene. After a proper size up, the fire is extinguished, PERIOD. ANY issues, regardless of whether they are personel, billing, disobeying orders, what ever, are discussed BACK AT THE FIREHOUSE, not on the fire scene.
That would depend upon the orders and the issue of following policy. There was no duty to act, plain and simple. Orders were given, orders are followed.
3rd,The "It costs money to run a fire department" reasoning. Really, would $75 really make a difference to a budget?
How much does $0 make a difference? The point is that there was no duty to act here. Should an insurance company pay for collision repair to a person's only vehicle if they had liability only? Should flood damage be covered by homeowner's insurance if the policy states that it won't cover flood damage and that a seperate rider would need to be purchased? Say that flood insurance rider was only $75 more a year, is it the responsibility to cover damages if it wasn't purchased? No. Same thing here.
4th. To use the "Just following orders" excuse is poor at bestToo bad, that is how things work in this service. Orders are followed, freelancing is discouraged, we don't pick and choose which orders we want to follow. Doing so constitutes freelancing.
-
-
I have to ask as well does the neighbors $75 cover the cost of the trucks idling and the man hours used while they sat and watched the house burn?
Yes, because by all accounts, the FD was there for the neighbor's property. Also, things need to be viewed in context here, the $75 is combined with other subscriptions, as well as tax dollars of the city residents to help fund the FD. The money is collected irregardless of use of services.
-
Permalink Reply by Fireslayer960 on
-
The point is,,,"Just following orders" is a cop-out. Sure I follow orders, we all do. But show me the order where somebody said, Let their house burn down if they dont pay. I doubt you will find one.
And comparing this to the insurance industry is lame. Are we a "For profit" operation?
I wouldnt be surprised if indeed as more of this story is exposed we dont find that it is a case of the Smiths and the McCoys. Meaning, that in the past, it was one of the Smiths, a relative or friend of somebody, who was allowed to pay AFTER the fire, but This family was the McCoy`s, from the other side of the tracks. Regardless, letting someones home burn down is heartless and gives all of us a black eye.
-
-
It doesn't. I was responding to your "what if" about a non-payment of a fire subscription and the committing of arson on your own property. You may get away with it, you may not, that is the point, what does that have to do with protection of the community?
-
-
I would show empathy to any family which endurred a loss and have done so many times. There are many times I responded to a person who already died and couldn't do anything.
Firefighters apologizing for following orders can be viewed as also showing empathy. They did nothing wrong, there was no duty to act, they followed orders, they probably did want to do something, but the policy and orders trumped that. They can feel bad, yeah, but they also had no obligation to act either. Showing empathy is not admitting to wrongdoing....don't try and make it out to be.
-
-
There ARE some places that are for profit. The order was given by the mayor in this case on down by following the policy.
The mayor said if homeowners don't pay, they're out of luck.
From the article at the top of the page.
-
-
Correct, the article says,,, "The mayor said" it doesnt say "operating guildlines obtained by this reporter state",,,,,So, lets wait and see where this story goes. But on that point, if indeed this was an actual order given, it makes you wonder about EVERYONE involved. From the mayor, to the city council, to the Fire Chief, the citizens commitee, and anyone else who was at the meetings discussing this issue. I truly find it hard to believe that these people are that cold hearted or are that stupid that they could not see that there was a risk of this happening. I know I said I wouldnt do the "what if" scenerio, but just for one example, what if this guy was a farmer and had Ammonium nitrate stored? But, I digress, lets wait until we hear more of the story.
-
-
There really isn't a need to wait for more of the story. The people decided against a tax for fire protection. The community where this fire occurred does not have a fire dept. The people decided against paying taxes to the other community which did have fire protection and decided instead for a subscription service.
The mayor and fire depts responsibility is to the citizens of the city and to those who paid the subscription. They had no duty to act for someone who did not pay the subscription. There was a new chief and the policy was made that if homeowners don't play, they are out of luck.
Cold hearted policy perhaps, but it is the policy decided upon by the people in the subscription area.
-
Permalink Reply by Eric Henderson on
-
it's not about greed it's about a real life need for funding for the fire department. If we start putting out fires to people who have never given us a dime, then the people who do pay are going to start wondering why they have to pay if we're just going to put the fires out anyway. And when everyone stops paying, where does that leave the fire service? Nowhere. The department can't buy new aparatus or new turnout gear, so we end up sending in guys in raincoats carrying a garden hose and then the house burns down and takes our Firefighters with it.
What if the city of south fulton didn't exist? What if there was no neighboring fire department to blame for not coming to the rescue for free? Who would we blame then? We should blame the county and the homeowners who thought they didn't need fire protection and who thought that it wasn't worth a $50 a year tax to have a fire department. These are the people who have truly failed here. As unfortunate as it is, the firefighters in this story were just doing their job.
It shouldn't upset you that firefighters from a neighboring jurisdiction which was in no way supported by this particular homeowner watched the house burn - what should upset you is that there are still places in this country without mandatory taxpayer funded comprehensive fire protection for all citizens. That is the true moral issue in this story. Placing blame on the firefighters just takes away from the far more important issue of universal fire protection.
© 2024 Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.
Powered by
